I've been in a few courts (for work not as a customer) in my time and it is beyond time that we bring back the presumption of anonymity for both rape victims and defendants. There could and should however be legal means to waive the anonymity of the defendant if there were multiple rapes where there may be hidden victims.

Pretty disgusting stuff which defies reading in its entirety. Yorkshire news is far more wholesome....I may consume a token piece of bacon whilst watching archive footage of Dixon of Dock Green, this evening.

To some extent, it is a civilised act to protect the name of a 'minor', whether a victim or suspected offender, until the offence has been proved. A colleague of mine was accused of a sexual assault, was named in the local paper, had his house attacked, his car burnt and his children attacked at school. It eventually transpired that the accuser was a deranged mental health patient who had previously made claims that she had been raped by, amongst others, Elvis Presley, Englebert Humperdink and the manager of the local ice rink (whose name escapes me for the moment). No apologies from the press, from the people who attacked his house or his children or burnt his car. Oh, Hum, life goes on.! Unless anyone is charged with an offence and found guilty, their identity should be withheld and anyone revealing it found guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to a fairly large prison sentence. But then I'm biased. I gave him the money to buy a new car, so he could move his family to another town!Penseivat

There is no obligation upon the court to maintain anonymity after conviction, and that is of either the victim or offender, unless the victim is a child. The court can order that the name is divulged.In circumstances where the victim and offender are closely related the offender/s name/s may be concealed because revealing the offender/s name/s would reveal that of the victim by association.This has been so for decades.